contrails

On 9 Jan, 11:56, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 9, 9:27*am, delboy wrote:

Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,


Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
that then there is never going to be the basis of any
form of useful discussion.

So why isn't the extra CO2 in the atmosphere causing the predicted
increase in temperature? Could not any excess CO2 be removed by
planting more trees (or at least not chopping down the forests we
already have) anyway?

and should we give up all modern
technology because of an unproven mathematical model?

No, of course not. This is another of your strawman points
in which you appear to put ridiculous words into the mouths
of reputable scientists.

Global warming
or Climate Change seems to be more of a religion, or political
crusade, than hard science.

Ditto denying global warming. Making strawman arguments
doesn't help the deniers' position.

That's not to say that we shouldn't
continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.

There we agree.

OK, So how do you propose to correct things? Lets suppose we we only
generate electricity from solar panels, wind power, hydro-electric
dams, tidal barrages and nuclear energy, and that all vehicles are
electrically powered. First of all, a lot of exotic materials such as
rare earth metals and uranium would be required, which would all have
to be mined (environmentally destructive) and processed (heat energy
required). Then you need a lot of expensive new infrastructure, and a
means of safely disposing of nuclear waste. Finally I understand that
would not be enough available copper in the world to wind all the
generating sets and electric motors (wars over copper instead of
oil?). Could an electric airliner carry enough batteries to also carry
a useful payload? If it was nuclear powered, what would happen if it
crashed?

Alternatively we could go back to living in caves I suppose!

Derek Copeland

On Jan 9, 12:48*pm, delboy wrote:
On 9 Jan, 11:56, Tom Gardner wrote:

On Jan 9, 9:27*am, delboy wrote:

Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,
Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
that then there is never going to be the basis of any
form of useful discussion.

So why isn't the extra CO2 in the atmosphere causing the predicted
increase in temperature?

(1) it is, within the limits expected
(2) the reasons used by the denialists: Other
Counterbalancing Factors

Could not any excess CO2 be removed by
planting more trees (or at least not chopping down the forests we
already have) anyway?

Oh, come on, don't be intellectually lazy. At least think it through.
(1) takes a long time to lock up carbon in a tree
(2) trees are carbon-neutral - think what happens after they die

It would, however be OK if the dead trees were buried so
the carbon didn't resurface. Maybe in the form of a nice black solid
that we're already excavating pretty fast.

That's not to say that we shouldn't
continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.

There we agree.

OK, So how do you propose to correct things? Lets suppose we we only
generate electricity from solar panels, wind power, hydro-electric
dams, tidal barrages and nuclear energy, and that all vehicles are
electrically powered. First of all, a lot of exotic materials such as
rare earth metals and uranium would be required, which would all have
to be mined (environmentally destructive) and processed (heat energy
required). Then you need a lot of expensive new infrastructure, and a
means of safely disposing of nuclear waste. Finally I understand that
would not be enough available copper in the world to wind all the
generating sets and electric motors (wars over copper instead of
oil?). Could an electric airliner carry enough batteries to also carry
a useful payload? If it was nuclear powered, what would happen if it
crashed?

Summary of that position: it is too difficult, so we shouldn't even
try.

Alternatively we could go back to living in caves I suppose!

When did you leave? I haven't lived in a cave since November 1981.
(or was it '80).

On 9 Jan, 19:56, Tom Gardner wrote:
Could not any excess CO2 be removed by
planting more trees (or at least not chopping down the forests we
already have) anyway?

Oh, come on, don't be intellectually lazy. At least think it through.
(1) takes a long time to lock up carbon in a tree
(2) trees are carbon-neutral - think what happens after they die

Precisely. Trees are Carbon Neutral and not all the CO2 gets locked up
as wood - some of it is used for making leaves which are shed and rot
down. When a tree has reached full maturity, it can be chopped down
and the wood used as a building material, which locks up carbon for
further period of time. All the unwanted branches and offcuts can be
burnt as a fuel. This is what humans always did before coal, oil and
natural gas became available, and what we will probably have to go
back to doing after they run out. The important thing is to plant
another tree that will continue to remove CO2 from the atmosphere,
which is what we have failed to do on a consistant basis for the last
few hundred years.

Trees and all other plants also breathe out Oxygen, which we do rather
need for our own metabolic purposes. QED.

Derek Copeland